Man did you miss that. I was talking about China in Panama, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil, FARC in Colombia... that Latin American threat, communist nations that mean us harm and are acting to inflict it. IMO, you can add Mexico to that list, but the mechanics are not analogous to a comparison between Bush and Reagan.
2. Reagan invaded Grenada, much to his credit (and allowed defenseless members of our armed forces to be murdered in Lebanon, in a bad case of UN cooperation). Bush 43, well you know about what he's been doing militarily, and it's been more of an investment than going to the Berlin wall with a microphone.
Getting Pershing missiles into Germany was no mean feat. I don't suppose you knew that the Russian military even had new street signs for West German cities already printed. Then there was the Russian naval buildup. Reagan brought down that empire without firing a shot. The key was decontrol of oil prices. The man understood strategy in a multi-faceted way that has yet to be appreciated, again, especially considering that he had a hostile congress.
3. Bush and Senate Republicans have had their hands significantly and constitutionally tied, in overcomming unprecedented and atrocious Democrat obstruction.
Bull. The Senate Republicans raised the white flag, else that filibuster would be running 24/7 for a year now. Had he chosen that fight, the Slave Party thugs would have had to cave on any number of issues. Bush has yet to veto a single bill.
Thanks for making your communication clear, C_O.
Bull. The Senate Republicans raised the white flag, else that filibuster would be running 24/7 for a year now. Had he chosen that fight, the Slave Party thugs would have had to cave on any number of issues. Bush has yet to veto a single bill.
If I find the article about this, I hope to remember to ping you to it.